Graduate Certificate in Antarctic Studies Syndicate Project Defining

Anne Hunter 93906776 Jane Ellis 49181706 Tim Ridley 72948985 Gareth Jack 64390021 Graduate Certificate in Antarctic Studies Syndicate Project Defining and Valuing Wilderness in Antarctica Due 19th January 2007 Summary Wilderness is a difficult term to define as it is a subjective concept. This paper uses three paradigms as a framework for discussing wilderness in general, and the Antarctic wilderness in particular. It looks at the Utilitarian view of wilderness; the view that wilderness is there to be used by man to ensure the greatest benefit for the greatest number. In contrast it looks at the Deep Ecology view of wilderness. This view sees wilderness as of intrinsic valuable, and human beings as just another part of the ecosystem with no right to damage it for any purpose. According to this view, man should get out of Antarctica and just allow the continent to be; to remain the last great wilderness. Finally, it looks at Libertarianism; the view that the Antarctic wilderness only has value in terms of its usefulness to human beings. This philosophy promotes private ownership as the way to protect the wilderness. The Antarctic Treaty System is then analysed in terms of these paradigms. It looks at which paradigm shaped the Treaty, finding that it was largely informed by the Utilitarian view. This changed in the 1980s when, with the failure of CRAMRA, there was a move towards a Deep Ecology paradigm with its emphasis on the intrinsic worth of the wilderness, and therefore the necessity of putting measures in place to protect it. This approach has been consistent up until today. However, future commercial pressures on the Antarctic wilderness may provide a catalyst to change this approach. These pressures may come from tourism companies wishing to expand tourism in the region, from firms wanting to carry out bioprospecting and from mining interests. This must result in a shift in the paradigm that shapes the working of the Antarctic Treaty System. 1 Contents SUMMARY ___________________________________________________________ 1 1. INTRODUCTION __________________________________________________ 3 1.1. The Historical Context of Wilderness ___________________________________________________ 4 2. METHODS ________________________________________________________ 6 2.1. A Framework for Analysing Ideas of Wilderness _________________________________________ 6 3. THREE PARADIGMS OF WILDERNESS _______________________________ 9 3.1. Deep Ecology Paradigm ______________________________________________________________ 10 3.1.1. Deep Ecology Beginnings and Foundation _____________________________________________ 10 3.1.2. Significance of the Wilderness _______________________________________________________ 10 3.1.3. Antarctic Wilderness _______________________________________________________________ 12 3.1.4. Aspects of Deep Ecology Paradigm in the Antarctic Treaty System ________________________ 13 3.2. Utilitarianism Paradigm ______________________________________________________________ 14 3.2.1. Utilitarian view of wilderness ________________________________________________________ 14 3.2.2. Utilitarian view on exploiting Antarctic wilderness _____________________________________ 16 3.2.3. Utilitarianism and the Antarctic Treaty System _________________________________________ 17 3.3. Libertarian Paradigm _________________________________________________________________ 18 3.3.1. A Libertarian View of Wilderness ____________________________________________________ 18 3.3.2. What is the Libertarian View on the Environment and the Wilderness _____________________ 19 3.3.3. The Libertarian View on Exploiting Antarctic Wilderness ________________________________ 21 3.3.4. Libertarians and the Antarctic Treaty System __________________________________________ 21 4. CURRENT PARADIGM IN THE ANTARCTIC TREATY SYSTEM __________ 23 5. LOOKING FORWARD: PRESSURES THAT MAY CHANGE THE CURRENT PARADIGM _________________________________________________________ 27 6. CONCLUSION ___________________________________________________ 29 7. REFERENCES ____________________________________________________ 30 2 1. Introduction Antarctica’s isolation and vastness as well as the relative absence of human activity has often led it to be labelled the globe’s last great wilderness. It is these wilderness qualities that have led to Antarctica being ascribed a special status both within the international community as well as within the global social consciousness. However, what is wilderness? or, more specifically, what is Antarctic wilderness? and how do our definitions of Antarctica as a wilderness area shape the behaviour of the international community? This paper seeks to address these questions so as to be able to 1) identify how Antarctic is perceived as a wilderness area, 2) identify areas of consensus and tension around present definitions of Antarctic wilderness, and 3) how changes in our concept of Antarctic wilderness lead to changes in human activity in the region. This paper opens by placing the concept of wilderness in a broader historical and social context. Secondly, it introduces a framework for analysis, in which Utilitarian, Deep Ecology and Libertarian paradigms of wilderness are examined. The third section is the analysis proper, and identifies the respective qualities of the paradigms in the context of the Antarctic. The final section utilises the framework developed from the previous two sections to analyse the paradigm of Antarctic wilderness values that presently exist in the Antarctic Treaty System, to identify pressures on the current wilderness paradigm and note potential repercussions. The paper finds that Utilitarian paradigms have dominated decisions made within the Antarctic Treaty System from its inception to the late 1980s and is specifically marked by the demise of the Convention for Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA). At this time, Deep Ecology paradigms entered the consensus, which has remained static to the present. The current consensus will come under increasing pressure in the future from commercial tourism, bioprospecting, and potentially mining activities. 3 1.1. The Historical Context of Wilderness Oelschlaeger (1991) argues that the idea of wilderness has changed over time with the development of human society, and that it has passed through four distinct phases. The first phase, or Prehistoric phase, is a period in which humankind lived exclusively in an unmodified natural environment. As nature was the key provider for human needs, the natural environment was deemed sacred and humanity sought to live in a manner that was in harmony with, and an integral part of, the natural environment. In the second, or Ancient phase, social institutions had become more complex than prehistoric times and agricultural developments had transformed both society and humankind’s relationship with the natural environment. Belief systems, such as the Yahwists, who believe in one god who created all things, rejected the idea of nature being sacred in its own right, in favour of worshipping their god. Under this paradigm, man was created in God’s image and consequently humankind was separate from nature, which was part of a fallen and profane world. Heaven assumed the new locality for perfection and as the ideal home, with humankind now concerned with taming nature for safety and agricultural production. However, wilderness also continued to be an important forum for seeking or meeting God, or oneself. Oelschlaeger (1991) argues that the impact of Yahwist theology in western culture led to an idea of nature being worthless unless it was humanised. The third, or Modern phase, is marked with the beginning of the Renaissance and runs into the present. This period has seen the ‘civilisation’ of wilderness areas in much of Europe and North America, as well as elsewhere around the globe. Modernism sees wilderness as useful for scientific inquiry and as a source of resources to drive economic prosperity. This phase marks the separation of humanity from wilderness and is marked by an increased homocentric paradigm amongst humanity and the increased exploitation of the natural environment. The fourth, or post-modern, phase views the world as entirely wilderness within which humanity is a single species. This view obliges humanity to live as part of a 4 broader ecological system in which human presence does not negatively affect upon the system as a whole. The development of these phases underscores the complexity of the idea of wilderness, and aptly illustrates how a change in humankind’s perception of the natural environment shapes the parameters for acceptable human activity. 5 2. Methods 2.1. A Framework for Analysing Ideas of Wilderness The process of building a robust definition of wilderness in the 21st century is fraught with tension between competing sociological, anthropological, economic and environmental paradigms as, it is important to note, the notion of wilderness is a social construct, not a natural one (Oelschlaeger , 1991). By way of example, consider the similarities and differences between these definitions of wilderness: . “For Westerners, the term ‘wilderness’ derives from the Anglo-Saxon word ‘wilddeoren’ and, later, the Old English ‘wildernesse’. Both words translate roughly as ‘place of wild beasts’ (National Park Service, 2006). “Wilderness is a dark and dismal place where all manner of wild beasts dash about uncooked” (cited Wilderness Institute, 2006). “A part of our natural landscape that is sufficiently large

Load more